Molecular classification and biomarkers of outcome with immunotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: analyses of the CASPIAN phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: We explored potential predictive biomarkers of immunotherapy response in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) treated with durvalumab (D) + tremelimumab (T) + etoposide-platinum (EP), D + EP, or EP in the randomized phase 3 CASPIAN trial. METHODS: 805 treatment-naïve patients with ES-SCLC were randomized (1:1:1) to receive D + T + EP, D + EP, or EP. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Patients were required to provide an archived tumor tissue block (or ≥ 15 newly cut unstained slides) at screening, if these samples existed. After assessment for programmed cell death ligand-1 expression and tissue tumor mutational burden, residual tissue was used for additional molecular profiling including by RNA sequencing and immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: In 182 patients with transcriptional molecular subtyping, OS with D ± T + EP was numerically highest in the SCLC-inflamed subtype (n = 10, median 24.0 months). Patients derived benefit from immunotherapy across subtypes; thus, additional biomarkers were investigated. OS benefit with D ± T + EP versus EP was greater with high versus low CD8A expression/CD8 cell density by immunohistochemistry, but with no additional benefit with D + T + EP versus D + EP. OS benefit with D + T + EP versus D + EP was associated with high expression of CD4 (median 25.9 vs. 11.4 months) and antigen-presenting and processing machinery (25.9 vs. 14.6 months) and MHC I and II (23.6 vs. 17.3 months) gene signatures, and with higher MHC I expression by immunohistochemistry. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the tumor microenvironment is important in mediating better outcomes with D ± T + EP in ES-SCLC, with canonical immune markers associated with hypothesized immunotherapy mechanisms of action defining patient subsets that respond to D ± T. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872.

Atezolizumab Plus Carboplatin and Etoposide in Patients with Untreated Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Interim Results of the MAURIS Phase IIIb Trial.

BACKGROUND: MAURIS is an Italian multicenter, open-label, phase IIIb ongoing trial, aiming at evaluating the safety and effectiveness of atezolizumab + carboplatin/etoposide in patients with newly diagnosed, extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The primary objective is the safety evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients received atezolizumab + carboplatin/etoposide Q3W for 4-6 cycles in the induction phase, followed by atezolizumab maintenance Q3W. We presented the interim analysis on safety (referring to the induction phase) and clinical effectiveness, in all patients (N = 154) and in subgroups that received ≤3 (N = 23), 4 (N = 43), and 5-6 cycles (N = 89) of induction. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 10.5 months, 139 patients (90.3%) discontinued treatment. Serious adverse events occurred in 29.9% of patients overall, and the rate was lower in patients with 5-6 cycles (19.1%) than in those with 4 (34.9%) or ≤3 (63.6%) cycles. Immune-mediated adverse events were reported in 14.9%, 15.7%, 11.6%, and 18.2% of patients, overall and by subgroup, respectively. The median overall survival and progression-free survival were 10.7 and 5.5 months, respectively. Overall, 111 patients (71.6%) had a tumor response. CONCLUSIONS: Interim results provide further evidences about safety and efficacy profile of atezolizumab + carboplatin/etoposide treatment in a ES-SCLC patient population closer to that observed in clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudract No. 2019-001146-17, NCT04028050.

First-line cemiplimab monotherapy and continued cemiplimab beyond progression plus chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 50% or more (EMPOWER-Lung 1): 35-month follow-up from a mutlicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cemiplimab provided significant survival benefit to patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of at least 50% and no actionable biomarkers at 1-year follow-up. In this exploratory analysis, we provide outcomes after 35 months' follow-up and the effect of adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at the time of disease progression. METHODS: EMPOWER-Lung 1 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed squamous or non-squamous advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of 50% or more. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to intravenous cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks, or until disease progression, or investigator's choice of chemotherapy. Central randomisation scheme generated by an interactive web response system governed the randomisation process that was stratified by histology and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival, as assessed by a blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Patients with disease progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab with the addition of up to four cycles of chemotherapy. We assessed response in these patients by BICR against a new baseline, defined as the last scan before chemotherapy initiation. The primary endpoints were assessed in all randomly assigned participants (ie, intention-to-treat population) and in those with a PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. We assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540. FINDINGS: Between May 29, 2017, and March 4, 2020, we recruited 712 patients (607 [85%] were male and 105 [15%] were female). We randomly assigned 357 (50%) to cemiplimab and 355 (50%) to chemotherapy. 284 (50%) patients assigned to cemiplimab and 281 (50%) assigned to chemotherapy had verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. At 35 months' follow-up, among those with a verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50% median overall survival in the cemiplimab group was 26·1 months (95% CI 22·1-31·8; 149 [52%] of 284 died) versus 13·3 months (10·5-16·2; 188 [67%] of 281 died) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·46-0·71; p<0·0001), median progression-free survival was 8·1 months (95% CI 6·2-8·8; 214 events occurred) in the cemiplimab group versus 5·3 months (4·3-6·1; 236 events occurred) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·51, 95% CI 0·42-0·62; p<0·0001). Continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as second-line therapy (n=64) resulted in a median progression-free survival of 6·6 months (6·1-9·3) and overall survival of 15·1 months (11·3-18·7). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (15 [4%] of 356 patients in the cemiplimab group vs 60 [17%] of 343 in the control group), neutropenia (three [1%] vs 35 [10%]), and pneumonia (18 [5%] vs 13 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in ten (3%) of 356 patients treated with cemiplimab (due to autoimmune myocarditis, cardiac failure, cardio-respiratory arrest, cardiopulmonary failure, septic shock, tumour hyperprogression, nephritis, respiratory failure, [n=1 each] and general disorders or unknown [n=2]) and in seven (2%) of 343 patients treated with chemotherapy (due to pneumonia and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each], and cardiac arrest, lung abscess, and myocardial infarction [n=1 each]). The safety profile of cemiplimab at 35 months, and of continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, was generally consistent with that previously observed for these treatments, with no new safety signals INTERPRETATION: At 35 months' follow-up, the survival benefit of cemiplimab for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer was at least as pronounced as at 1 year, affirming its use as first-line monotherapy for this population. Adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at progression might provide a new second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

Prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and EPSILoN score in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with first-line chemo-immunotherapy.

Background: Clinical and laboratory biomarkers in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) receiving chemo-immunotherapy (CIT) are still poorly explored. Materials & methods: All consecutive aNSCLC patients who received at least one cycle of first-line CIT were enrolled. The impact of several clinical and laboratory biomarkers on outcomes was evaluated through Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was shown to be an independent prognostic biomarker of both worse progression-free survival and worse overall survival. The EPSILoN score was able to divide patients into three different prognostic groups, with a median overall survival of 73.2, 45.6 and 8.6 months for the favorable, intermediate and poor groups, respectively. Conclusion: The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and EPSILoN score were shown to have a prognostic value in aNSCLC patients treated with CIT.

Patients affected by inoperable lung cancer, due to great extension or to the presence of metastases, are currently treated with intravenous drugs that act on immune system activation alone or in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment. The characteristics of these patients (both their medical history and their blood exams) need to be studied to find out if some of them can help clinicians to predict if they will benefit from the combination of immunotherapy with chemotherapy. The authors collected the data of patients with advanced lung cancer treated in their hospital and found out that a value calculated from their blood exams, collected before the start of treatment and a combination of values named EPSILoN score (which considers patients' clinical condition, their history of tobacco smoking, the presence of metastases in the liver and two blood exam parameters, namely the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and LDH level) can predict how their disease will evolve during first-line treatment with chemotherapy in combination with immunotherapy.

Gemcitabine with or without ramucirumab as second-line treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma (RAMES): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a preclinical rationale for inhibiting angiogenesis in mesothelioma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the anti-VEGFR-2 antibody ramucirumab combined with gemcitabine in patients with pretreated malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: RAMES was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial done at 26 hospitals in Italy. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and histologically proven malignant pleural mesothelioma progressing during or after first-line treatment with pemetrexed plus platinum. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks plus either intravenous placebo (gemcitabine plus placebo group) or ramucirumab 10 mg/kg (gemcitabine plus ramucirumab group) on day 1 every 3 weeks, until tumour progression or unacceptable toxicity. Central randomisation was done according to a minimisation algorithm method, associated with a random element using the following stratification factors: ECOG performance status, age, histology, and first-line time-to-progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured from the date of randomisation to the date of death from any cause. Efficacy analyses were assessed in all patients who had been correctly randomised and received their allocated treatment, and safety analyses were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03560973, and with EudraCT, 2016-001132-36. FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2016, and July 30, 2018, of 165 patients enrolled 161 were correctly assigned and received either gemcitabine plus placebo (n=81) or gemcitabine plus ramucirumab (n=80). At database lock (March 8, 2020), with a median follow-up of 21·9 months (IQR 17·7-28·5), overall survival was longer in the ramucirumab group (HR 0·71, 70% CI 0·59-0·85; p=0·028). Median overall survival was 13·8 months (70% CI 12·7-14·4) in the gemcitabine plus ramucirumab group and 7·5 months (6·9-8·9) in the gemcitabine plus placebo group. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 35 (44%) of 80 patients in the gemcitabine plus ramucirumab group and 24 (30%) of 81 in the gemcitabine plus placebo group. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (16 [20%] for gemcitabine plus ramucirumab vs ten [12%] for gemcitabine plus placebo) and hypertension (five [6%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in five (6%) in the gemcitabine plus ramucirumab group and in four (5%) patients in the gemcitabine plus placebo group; the most common was thromboembolism (three [4%] for gemcitabine plus ramucirumab vs two [2%] for gemcitabine plus placebo). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Ramucirumab plus gemcitabine significantly improved overall survival after first-line standard chemotherapy, with a favourable safety profile. This combination could be a new option in this setting. FUNDING: Eli Lilly Italy. TRANSLATION: For the Italian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): updated results from a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line durvalumab plus etoposide with either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum-etoposide) showed a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the CASPIAN study. Here we report updated results, including the primary analysis for overall survival with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone. METHODS: CASPIAN is an ongoing, open-label, sponsor-blind, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 209 cancer treatment centres in 23 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (20 years in Japan) and had treatment-naive, histologically or cytologically documented ES-SCLC, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in blocks of six, stratified by planned platinum, using an interactive voice-response or web-response system to receive intravenous durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, or platinum-etoposide alone. In all groups, patients received etoposide 80-100 mg/m2 on days 1-3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5-6 mg/mL/min or cisplatin 75-80 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle. Patients in the platinum-etoposide group received up to six cycles of platinum-etoposide every 3 weeks and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion). Patients in the immunotherapy groups received four cycles of platinum-etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks. The two primary endpoints were overall survival for durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide and for durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872. FINDINGS: Between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018, 972 patients were screened and 805 were randomly assigned (268 to durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, 268 to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, and 269 to platinum-etoposide). As of Jan 27, 2020, the median follow-up was 25·1 months (IQR 22·3-27·9). Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide was not associated with a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-1·00]; p=0·045); median overall survival was 10·4 months (95% CI 9·6-12·0) versus 10·5 months (9·3-11·2). Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide showed sustained improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·62-0·91]; nominal p=0·0032); median overall survival was 12·9 months (95% CI 11·3-14·7) versus 10·5 months (9·3-11·2). The most common any-cause grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (85 [32%] of 266 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group, 64 [24%] of 265 patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group, and 88 [33%] of 266 patients in the platinum-etoposide group) and anaemia (34 [13%], 24 [9%], and 48 [18%]). Any-cause serious adverse events were reported in 121 (45%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group, 85 (32%) in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group, and 97 (36%) in the platinum-etoposide group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 12 (5%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group (death, febrile neutropenia, and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each]; enterocolitis, general physical health deterioration and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pneumonia, pneumonitis and hepatitis, respiratory failure, and sudden death [n=1 each]), six (2%) patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group (cardiac arrest, dehydration, hepatotoxicity, interstitial lung disease, pancytopenia, and sepsis [n=1 each]), and two (1%) in the platinum-etoposide group (pancytopenia and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]). INTERPRETATION: First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide showed sustained overall survival improvement versus platinum-etoposide but the addition of tremelimumab to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide did not significantly improve outcomes versus platinum-etoposide. These results support the use of durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide as a new standard of care for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Myeloid cell heterogeneity in lung cancer: implication for immunotherapy.

Lung is a specialized tissue where metastases from primary lung tumors takeoff and those originating from extra-pulmonary sites land. One commonality characterizing these processes is the supportive role exerted by myeloid cells, particularly neutrophils, whose recruitment is facilitated in this tissue microenvironment. Indeed, neutrophils have important part in the pathophysiology of this organ and the key mechanisms regulating neutrophil expansion and recruitment during infection can be co-opted by tumor cells to promote growth and metastasis. Although neutrophils dominate the myeloid landscape of lung cancer other populations including macrophages, dendritic cells, mast cells, basophils and eosinophils contribute to the complexity of lung cancer TME. In this review, we discuss the origin and significance of myeloid cells heterogeneity in lung cancer, which translates not only in a different frequency of immune populations but it encompasses state of activation, morphology, localization and mutual interactions. The relevance of such heterogeneity is considered in the context of tumor growth and response to immunotherapy.

COVID-19 in patients with thoracic malignancies (TERAVOLT): first results of an international, registry-based, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Early reports on patients with cancer and COVID-19 have suggested a high mortality rate compared with the general population. Patients with thoracic malignancies are thought to be particularly susceptible to COVID-19 given their older age, smoking habits, and pre-existing cardiopulmonary comorbidities, in addition to cancer treatments. We aimed to study the effect of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection on patients with thoracic malignancies. METHODS: The Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration (TERAVOLT) registry is a multicentre observational study composed of a cross-sectional component and a longitudinal cohort component. Eligibility criteria were the presence of any thoracic cancer (non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC], small-cell lung cancer, mesothelioma, thymic epithelial tumours, and other pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms) and a COVID-19 diagnosis, either laboratory confirmed with RT-PCR, suspected with symptoms and contacts, or radiologically suspected cases with lung imaging features consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia and symptoms. Patients of any age, sex, histology, or stage were considered eligible, including those in active treatment and clinical follow-up. Clinical data were extracted from medical records of consecutive patients from Jan 1, 2020, and will be collected until the end of pandemic declared by WHO. Data on demographics, oncological history and comorbidities, COVID-19 diagnosis, and course of illness and clinical outcomes were collected. Associations between demographic or clinical characteristics and outcomes were measured with odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs using univariable and multivariable logistic regression, with sex, age, smoking status, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease included in multivariable analysis. This is a preliminary analysis of the first 200 patients. The registry continues to accept new sites and patient data. FINDINGS: Between March 26 and April 12, 2020, 200 patients with COVID-19 and thoracic cancers from eight countries were identified and included in the TERAVOLT registry; median age was 68·0 years (61·8-75·0) and the majority had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (142 [72%] of 196 patients), were current or former smokers (159 [81%] of 196), had non-small-cell lung cancer (151 [76%] of 200), and were on therapy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis (147 [74%] of 199), with 112 (57%) of 197 on first-line treatment. 152 (76%) patients were hospitalised and 66 (33%) died. 13 (10%) of 134 patients who met criteria for ICU admission were admitted to ICU; the remaining 121 were hospitalised, but were not admitted to ICU. Univariable analyses revealed that being older than 65 years (OR 1·88, 95% 1·00-3·62), being a current or former smoker (4·24, 1·70-12·95), receiving treatment with chemotherapy alone (2·54, 1·09-6·11), and the presence of any comorbidities (2·65, 1·09-7·46) were associated with increased risk of death. However, in multivariable analysis, only smoking history (OR 3·18, 95% CI 1·11-9·06) was associated with increased risk of death. INTERPRETATION: With an ongoing global pandemic of COVID-19, our data suggest high mortality and low admission to intensive care in patients with thoracic cancer. Whether mortality could be reduced with treatment in intensive care remains to be determined. With improved cancer therapeutic options, access to intensive care should be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting based on cancer specific mortality and patients' preference. FUNDING: None.

Hyperprogressive Disease upon Immune Checkpoint Blockade: Focus on Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Describe the controversial aspects of hyperprogressive disease (HPD) definition, mechanisms, and biomarkers. RECENT FINDINGS: Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) demonstrated a survival benefit in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), an acceleration of tumor growth during ICI, defined as HPD, was reported in ~ 13-26% of NSCLC patients and correlated with worse survival compared with conventional progression. Different criteria have been used for HPD definition. The main limitation for the use of tumor growth rate and tumor growth kinetics variations is its inapplicability for patients without a pre-baseline imaging or progressing on non-measurable lesions. On the contrary, time to treatment failure and clinical criteria (i.e., worsening of performance status, presence of new lesions, or metastatic spread to different sites) can be useful in the above-mentioned settings but do not consent an assessment of tumor growth before ICI initiation. Several mechanisms of HPD have been proposed so far, involving both adaptive and innate immunity or based on cell-autonomous signals of cancer growth triggered by ICI. The characterization of HPD biomarkers and the identification and validation on large series of one or more mechanistic explanations for the HPD phenomenon are of paramount significance to avoid detrimental immunotherapy in a subgroup of patients and exploit novel therapeutic targets for future immunotherapy combinations. HPD occur in a subgroup of NSCLC patients treated with ICI. Several definitions and mechanisms have been proposed and a consensus on HPD criteria and biological bases is currently lacking.

Durvalumab as third-line or later treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIC): an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a new standard of care for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR tyrosine kinase or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genetic aberrations (EGFR-/ALK-), but clinical benefit in patients with EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements (EGFR+/ALK+) has not been shown. We assessed the effect of durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) treatment in three cohorts of patients with NSCLC defined by EGFR/ALK status and tumour expression of PD-L1. METHODS: ATLANTIC is a phase 2, open-label, single-arm trial at 139 study centres in Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients had advanced NSCLC with disease progression following at least two previous systemic regimens, including platinum-based chemotherapy (and tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy if indicated); were aged 18 years or older; had a WHO performance status score of 0 or 1; and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. Key exclusion criteria included mixed small-cell lung cancer and NSCLC histology; previous exposure to any anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibody; and any previous grade 3 or worse immune-related adverse event while receiving any immunotherapy agent. Patients in cohort 1 had EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC with at least 25%, or less than 25%, of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression. Patients in cohorts 2 and 3 had EGFR-/ALK- NSCLC; cohort 2 included patients with at least 25%, or less than 25%, of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression, and cohort 3 included patients with at least 90% of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression. Patients received durvalumab (10 mg/kg) every 2 weeks, via intravenous infusion, for up to 12 months. Retreatment was allowed for patients who benefited but then progressed after completing 12 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with increased tumour expression of PD-L1 (defined as ≥25% of tumour cells in cohorts 1 and 2, and ≥90% of tumour cells in cohort 3) who achieved an objective response, assessed in patients who were evaluable for response per independent central review according to RECIST version 1.1. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of durvalumab and for whom any post-dose data were available. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer open to accrual, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02087423. FINDINGS: Between Feb 25, 2014, and Dec 28, 2015, 444 patients were enrolled and received durvalumab: 111 in cohort 1, 265 in cohort 2, and 68 in cohort 3. Among patients with at least 25% of tumour cells expressing PD-L1 who were evaluable for objective response per independent central review, an objective response was achieved in 9 (12·2%, 95% CI 5·7-21·8) of 74 patients in cohort 1 and 24 (16·4%, 10·8-23·5) of 146 patients in cohort 2. In cohort 3, 21 (30·9%, 20·2-43·3) of 68 patients achieved an objective response. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 40 (9%) of 444 patients overall: six (5%) of 111 patients in cohort 1, 22 (8%) of 265 in cohort 2, and 12 (18%) of 68 in cohort 3. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were pneumonitis (four patients [1%]), elevated gamma-glutamyltransferase (four [1%]), diarrhoea (three [1%]), infusion-related reaction (three [1%]), elevated aspartate aminotransferase (two [<1%]), elevated transaminases (two [<1%]), vomiting (two [<1%]), and fatigue (two [<1%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 27 (6%) of 444 patients overall: five (5%) of 111 patients in cohort 1, 14 (5%) of 265 in cohort 2, and eight (12%) of 68 in cohort 3. The most common serious adverse events overall were pneumonitis (five patients [1%]), fatigue (three [1%]), and infusion-related reaction (three [1%]). Immune-mediated events were manageable with standard treatment guidelines. INTERPRETATION: In patients with advanced and heavily pretreated NSCLC, the clinical activity and safety profile of durvalumab was consistent with that of other anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 agents. Responses were recorded in all cohorts; the proportion of patients with EGFR-/ALK- NSCLC (cohorts 2 and 3) achieving a response was higher than the proportion with EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC (cohort 1) achieving a response. The clinical activity of durvalumab in patients with EGFR+ NSCLC with ≥25% of tumour cells expressing PD-L1 was encouraging, and further investigation of durvalumab in patients with EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC is warranted. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Nivolumab in never-smokers with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer: Results from the Italian cohort of an expanded access program.

OBJECTIVES:: Never-smokers may be a distinct subgroup among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, appearing to benefit less from immunotherapy than smokers. We report results from never-smokers enrolled in the Italian cohort of the nivolumab expanded access program in pre-treated patients with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS:: Nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for ≤24 months) was available on physician request. Efficacy data included objective tumor response, date of progression, and survival information. Safety was monitored. RESULTS:: Overall, 371 patients received at least one dose of nivolumab, including 31 never-smokers (8%). Objective response rate, disease-control rate, and median overall survival were 23%, 45%, and 12.1 months (95% confidence interval: 3.7-20.4), respectively, in never-smokers, and 18%, 47%, and 7.9 months (95% confidence interval: 6.2-9.6), respectively, in the overall expanded access program population. Any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 12 (39%) and 3 (10%) never-smokers, respectively, and in 109 (29%) and 21 (6%) patients, respectively, in the overall expanded access program population. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in non-smokers were increased transaminases (n = 2; 6%) and diarrhea (n = 1; 3%). Treatment-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 4 non-smokers (17%) and in 26 patients (9%) overall. CONCLUSION:: Pre-treated never-smokers with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer in this Italian expanded access program demonstrated efficacy and safety that were consistent with those in the overall expanded access program population and clinical trials. These results suggest that a proportion of never-smoker patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer may be responsive to immunotherapy. Other factors, such as the tumor mutational load and the status of programmed death-ligand 1, anaplastic lymphoma kinase, and epidermal growth factor receptor, might play a potential key role.

Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy: focus on bronchial neuroendocrine tumors.

Well-differentiated bronchial neuroendocrine tumors (B-NETs) are rare. They represent 1-5 % of all lung cancers. The incidence of these neoplasms has risen over the past 30 years and, especially for advanced or metastatic disease, management is complex and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Treatment with somatostatin analogs (SSAs) is the most important first-line therapy, in particular in well-differentiated NETs with high somatostatin type receptor (SSTR) expression. In these tumors, the role of mammalian target of rapamycin (m-TOR) inhibitors and the potential utility of other target therapies remain unclear while chemotherapy represents the gold standard treatment only for aggressive forms with low SSTR expression. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is an emerging treatment modality for advanced NETs. There are many cumulative evidences about the effectiveness and tolerability of this therapeutic approach, especially in gastro-entero-pancreatic (GEP)-NETs. For B-NETs, scientific research is moving more slowly. Here, we performed a review in order to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of PRRT with a focus on patients with inoperable or metastatic well-differentiated B-NETs.

Treatment of lung large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma.

Lung large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (L-LCNEC) is a rare, aggressive, and difficult-to-treat tumor. It is classified as a neuroendocrine subtype of large cell lung carcinoma (LCLC) belonging to the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) group, but it is also included in the neuroendocrine tumor (NET) group. Most of the available data related to its treatment derive from retrospective analyses or small case series. For patients with L-LCNEC, prognosis is generally very poor. In early stages (I-II-III), surgery is recommended but does not seem to be sufficient. Platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy may be useful while the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is still not well defined. In patients with advanced L-LCNEC, the chemotherapy regimens used in SCLC still remain the standard of treatment, but results are not satisfactory. Due to their peculiar clinical and biological features and the lack of literature data, there is an emerging need for a consensus on the best treatment strategy for L-LCNEC and for the identification of new therapeutic options. In this review, we will discuss the key aspects of L-LCNEC management with the aim to clarify the most controversial issues.

Erlotinib versus docetaxel as second-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and wild-type EGFR tumours (TAILOR): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Erlotinib is registered for treatment of all patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, its efficacy for treatment of patients whose tumours are EGFR wild-type-which includes most patients-is still contentious. We assessed the efficacy of erlotinib compared with a standard second-line chemotherapy in such patients. METHODS: We did this randomised controlled trial in 52 Italian hospitals. We enrolled patients who had metastatic NSCLC, had had platinum-based chemotherapy, and had wild-type EGFR as assessed by direct sequencing. Patients were randomly assigned centrally (1:1) to receive either erlotinib orally 150 mg/day or docetaxel intravenously 75 mg/m(2) every 21 days or 35 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15, every 28 days. Randomisation was stratified by centre, stage, type of first-line chemotherapy, and performance status. Patients and investigators who gave treatments or assessed outcomes were not masked to treatment allocation, investigators who analysed results were. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00637910. FINDINGS: We screened 702 patients, of whom we genotyped 540. 222 patients were enrolled (110 assigned to docetaxel vs 112 assigned to erlotinib). Median overall survival was 8·2 months (95% CI 5·8-10·9) with docetaxel versus 5·4 months (4·5-6·8) with erlotinib (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·53-1·00; p=0·05). Progression-free survival was significantly better with docetaxel than with erlotinib: median progression-free survival was 2·9 months (95% CI 2·4-3·8) with docetaxel versus 2·4 months (2·1-2·6) with erlotinib (adjusted HR 0·71, 95% CI 0·53-0·95; p=0·02). The most common grade 3-4 toxic effects were: low absolute neutrophil count (21 [20%] of 104 in the docetaxel group vs none of 107 in the erlotinib group), skin toxic effects (none vs 15 [14%]), and asthenia (ten [10%] vs six [6%]). INTERPRETATION: Our results show that chemotherapy is more effective than erlotinib for second-line treatment for previously treated patients with NSCLC who have wild-type EGFR tumours.

Caloric restriction and metformin selectively improved LKB1-mutated NSCLC tumor response to chemo- and chemo-immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: About 10% of NSCLCs are mutated in KRAS and impaired in STK11/LKB1, a genetic background associated with poor prognosis, caused by an increase in metastatic burden and resistance to standard therapy. LKB1 is a protein involved in a number of biological processes and is particularly important for its role in the regulation of cell metabolism. LKB1 alterations lead to protein loss that causes mitochondria and metabolic dysfunction that makes cells unable to respond to metabolic stress. Different studies have shown how it is possible to interfere with cancer metabolism using metformin and caloric restriction (CR) and both modify the tumor microenvironment (TME), stimulating the switch from "cold" to "hot". Given the poor therapeutic response of KRASmut/LKB1mut patients, and the role of LKB1 in cell metabolism, we examined whether the addition of metformin and CR enhanced the response to chemo or chemo-immunotherapy in LKB1 impaired tumors. METHODS: Mouse cell lines were derived from lung nodules of transgenic mice carrying KRASG12D with either functional LKB1 (KRASG12D/LKB1wt) or mutated LKB1 (KRASG12D/LKB1mut). Once stabilized in vitro, these cell lines were inoculated subcutaneously and intramuscularly into immunocompetent mice. Additionally, a patient-derived xenograft (PDX) model was established by directly implanting tumor fragments from patient into immunocompromised mice. The mice bearing these tumor models were subjected to treatment with chemotherapy or chemo-immunotherapy, both as standalone regimens and in combination with metformin and CR. RESULTS: Our preclinical results indicate that in NSCLC KRASmut/LKB1mut tumors, metformin and CR do enhance the response to chemo and chemo-immunotherapy, inducing a metabolic stress condition that these tumors are not able to overcome. Analysis of immune infiltrating cells did not bring to light any strong correlation between the TME immune-modulation and the tumor response to metformin and CR. CONCLUSION: Our in vitro and in vivo preliminary studies confirm our hypothesis that the addition of metformin and CR is able to improve the antitumor activity of chemo and chemoimmunotherapy in LKB1 impaired tumors, exploiting their inability to overcome metabolic stress.

Durvalumab ± Tremelimumab + Platinum-Etoposide in Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer (CASPIAN): Outcomes by PD-L1 Expression and Tissue Tumor Mutational Burden.

PURPOSE: In the CASPIAN trial, first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We report exploratory analyses of CASPIAN outcomes by programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression and tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to durvalumab (1,500 mg) plus EP, durvalumab plus tremelimumab (75 mg) plus EP, or EP alone. Treatment effects in PD-L1 and tTMB subgroups were estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The PD-L1 and tTMB biomarker-evaluable populations (BEP) comprised 54.4% (438/805) and 35.2% (283/805) of the intention-to-treat population, respectively. PD-L1 prevalence was low: 5.7%, 25.8%, and 28.3% had PD-L1 expression on ≥1% tumor cells (TC), ≥1% immune cells (IC), and ≥1% TCs or ICs, respectively. OS benefit with durvalumab plus EP versus EP was similar across PD-L1 subgroups, with HRs all falling within the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the PD-L1 BEP (0.47‒0.79). OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP versus EP was greater in PD-L1 ≥1% versus <1% subgroups, although CIs overlapped. There was no evidence of an interaction between tTMB and treatment effect on OS (durvalumab plus EP vs. EP, P = 0.916; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP vs. EP, P = 0.672). CONCLUSIONS: OS benefit with first-line durvalumab plus EP in patients with ES-SCLC was observed regardless of PD-L1 or tTMB status. PD-L1 expression may prove to be a useful biomarker for combined treatment with PD-(L)1 and CTLA-4 inhibition, although this requires confirmation with an independent dataset. See related commentary by Rolfo and Russo, p. 652.

Sacituzumab Govitecan Versus Docetaxel for Previously Treated Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Randomized, Open-Label Phase III EVOKE-01 Study.

PURPOSE: The open-label, phase III EVOKE-01 study evaluated sacituzumab govitecan (SG) versus standard-of-care docetaxel in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) with progression on/after platinum-based chemotherapy, anti-PD-(L)1, and targeted treatment for actionable genomic alterations (AGAs). Primary analysis is reported. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 (stratified by histology, best response to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen, and AGA treatment received or not) to SG (one 10 mg/kg intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8) or docetaxel (one 75 mg/m2 intravenous infusion on day 1) in 21-day cycles. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Key secondary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, patient-reported symptom assessment, and safety. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat population (SG, n = 299; docetaxel, n = 304), 55.4% had one previous line of therapy. Median follow-up was 12.7 months (range, 6.0-24.0). The primary end point was not met. There was a numerical OS improvement for SG versus docetaxel (median, 11.1 v 9.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.04]; one-sided P = .0534), consistent across squamous and nonsquamous histologies. Median PFS was 4.1 versus 3.9 months (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.11]). An OS benefit was observed for SG (n = 192) versus docetaxel (n = 191) in mNSCLC nonresponsive to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen (3.5-month median OS increase; HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.97]); this was consistent across histologies. Among patients receiving SG and docetaxel, 6.8% and 14.2% discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), respectively; 1.4% and 1.0%, respectively, had TRAEs leading to death. CONCLUSION: Although statistical significance was not met, OS numerically improved with SG versus docetaxel, which was consistent across histologies. Clinically meaningful improvement in OS was noted in mNSCLC nonresponsive to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen. SG was better tolerated than docetaxel and consistent with its known safety profile, with no new safety signals.

Nivolumab in pretreated pleural mesothelioma: Results from an observational real-world study of patients treated within the AIFA 5% Fund.

BACKGROUND: Pleural mesothelioma is a rare cancer with a dismal prognosis and few therapeutic options, especially in the pretreated setting. Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors as single agents yielded interesting results in refractory pleural mesothelioma, achieving a response rate between 10-20%, median progression-free survival of 2-5 months and median overall survival of 7-13 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective, multi-institutional study of pleural mesothelioma patients treated with nivolumab in second and further line was performed. The endpoints of the study are response rate, disease control rate, progression free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients with pleural mesothelioma treated with nivolumab in second and further line were enrolled at seven Italian institutions. The response rate was 8%, disease control rate was 37%, median progression free survival was 5.7 months (95% CI: 2.9-9.0) and median overall survival was 11.1 (95% CI 6.2-19.9) months. A higher neutrophils and neutrophils to lymphocytes ratio at baseline were associated with worse prognosis. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab as a single agent is fairly active in a cohort of unselected pretreated pleural mesothelioma patients. Further investigations on clinical and translational factors are needed to define which patient might benefit most from nivolumab treatment in pleural mesothelioma.

Canakinumab Versus Placebo in Combination With First-Line Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CANOPY-1 Trial.

PURPOSE: The addition of checkpoint inhibitors to first-line treatment has prolonged survival of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but prognosis remains poor, with new treatment options needed. Canakinumab, a human, monoclonal anti-interleukin (IL)-1ß antibody, has potential to enhance the activity of PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy (CT) by inhibiting protumor inflammation. METHODS: CANOPY-1 was a phase III, randomized, double-blind study comparing canakinumab (200 mg subcutaneously once every 3 weeks) versus placebo, both combined with pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) and platinum-based doublet CT, as first-line treatment for advanced/metastatic NSCLC without EGFR or ALK mutations. The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included overall response rate, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 643 patients were randomly assigned to canakinumab (n = 320) or placebo (n = 323). With a median study follow-up of 6.5 months, the median PFS was 6.8 months with canakinumab versus 6.8 months with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.09; P = .102). With a median study follow-up of 21.2 months, the median OS was 20.8 months with canakinumab versus 20.2 months with placebo (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.10; P = .123). No unexpected safety signals were observed for canakinumab combination. Infection rates were comparable between treatment and control arms. A higher frequency of neutropenia and ALT increase (grade ≤2) were reported in the treatment arm. Higher baseline C-reactive protein and IL-6 levels were associated with shorter PFS and OS. Patients treated with canakinumab had clinically meaningful delays in deterioration of lung cancer symptoms, including chest pain and coughing per LC13 and dyspnea per LC13 and C30. CONCLUSION: The addition of canakinumab to first-line pembrolizumab and CT did not prolong PFS or OS in patients with NSCLC.